| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Jun 2006 : Column 42W—continued
| Pension credit caseloads: Great Britain each November 2003 to 2005 | |
| November | Number |
| Income based jobseeker’s allowance (JSA(IB)) caseloads: Great Britain each November 1997 to 2005 | |
| November | Number |
Child Support Agency
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of administering child support payments under (a) the old system and (b) the current system in the last period for which figures are available. [75807]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the cost was of administering child support payments under (a) the old system and (b) the current system in the last period for which figures are available.
The Child Support Agency is funded to administer child support applications and payments regardless of whether the assessment is based on old scheme or new scheme rules or systems. The actual costs of administering child support under each system are not separately identified and as such we cannot supply information to the level of detail required.
The cost of administering the Child Support Agency in 2004/05 was £325.6m. Figures for 2005/06 will be available when the Annual Report and Accounts is published. A change in accounting policy proposed by the Department for Work and Pensions, and confirmed by National Audit Office, will lead to a restatement of 2004/05 expenditure reported in the Agency’s annual accounts. This reflects the incorporation of costs associated with the modernisation programme in the accounts of individual Agencies rather than charging such costs directly to the central Departmental Resource Account. It is expected that the restated 2004-05 figure will increase expenditure to around £425m. Costs for 2005/06 will be prepared on the same basis.
I hope you find this helpful.
Miss McIntosh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-compliant absent parents for child support purposes are (a) employed, (b) self-employed and (c) work abroad; and what
percentage those employed are of the total number of non-compliant absent parents. [75811]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many non-compliant absent parents for child support purposes are (a) employed (b) self-employed and (c) work abroad; and what percentage those employed are of the total number of non-compliant absent parents.
The Agency records information in terms of cases rather parents. My answer is therefore provided on this basis.
At the end of March 2006, there were 127,000 cases involving non-resident parents who were non-compliant. Of these:
77,000 cases involved non-resident parents who were employed. This represents 61 per cent. of all non-compliant cases.
13,000 cases involved non-resident parents who were self-employed. This represents around 10 per cent. of all non-compliant cases.
This information reflects the status of the non-resident parent currently held on the system as at the last intervention by the Agency and will not reflect changes in circumstances that the Agency has not yet been informed of, or are currently being processed.
Non-resident parents who live abroad generally do not have any ongoing liability for child maintenance. However, the 127,000 cases which involve non-compliant non-resident parents do include:
Cases where non-resident parents accrued arrears for a maintenance liability, before permanently moving out of the UK.
Cases where non-resident parents live abroad but work for a UK- based employer, e.g. a member of HM Diplomatic Service or HM Armed Forces, although whether or not a non-resident parent in this situation will have an ongoing liability is dependent on their particular circumstances.
However, we are unable to specify the volumes of non-compliant cases in either of these circumstances.
I hope you find this helpful.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the total pensions liability in respect of the 20 most highly paid civil servants at the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [77975]
Mrs. McGuire: A technical note by HM Treasury was placed in the Library of the House following an oral statement in Parliament by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 2 March 2006, Official Report, columns 388-90. This note is a full statement about these liabilities and provides detailed information about the size and nature of the liabilities and how they are calculated.
Pension liabilities are not estimated for individual departments, they are estimated for individual pension schemes, as shown in the breakdown of liabilities per pension scheme given in Table 1 of the technical note.
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many single parents receive the £5 deduction which claimants on benefit have to make towards Child Support Agency maintenance payments; [78794]
(2) how many people on benefit are liable for Child Support Agency maintenance payments; and how many have automatic deductions made against them. [78795]
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 19 June 2006]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to my right hon. Friend with the information requested.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many single parents receive the £5 deduction which claimants on benefit have to make towards Child Support Agency maintenance payments.
You also asked how many people on benefit are liable for Child Support Agency maintenance payments; and how many of this number have automatic deductions made against them.
The Agency records information in terms of cases rather than parents. Additionally the £5 deduction from benefit only applies to the new scheme. My answer is therefore provided on this basis.
In order to obtain the benefit status of non-resident parents associated with new scheme cases, it has been necessary to match data from the Agency’s administrative systems with data from the benefits system administered by Jobcentre Plus. The latter set of administrative data is published quarterly, and the latest information available is for November 2005.
At the end of November 2005, there were 70,000 new scheme cases involving a non-resident parent (NRP) in receipt of Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance or Incapacity Benefit with a positive maintenance liability. Of these, 54,000 had a deduction for benefit as the specified method of collection.
The number of new scheme cases with a deduction from benefit that at the Agency was collecting maintenance from was 26,000,
It should be noted that although a case can have a liability to pay the £5 deduction from benefit, the full amount may be owed to more than one parent with care. In this case the liable amount will be divided between the cases for which the non-resident parent has a liability.
It should also be noted that there are also a small number of NRPs (the number of which cannot be quantified) who receive other benefits against which the Agency has a claim; namely—Retirement Pension, Pension Credit, Bereavement Allowance, Widowed Parents Allowance/Pension, Incapacity Benefit, Carer's Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, Maternity Allowance, War Disablement or War Widows Pension, also certain training allowances. However, it is not possible to provide information on these cases.
I hope you find this helpful.
Children's Services
Mr. Kemp: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many nursery and crèche places are provided for people working in his Department; what charges are made for the provision of such services; and what other facilities are provided for the children of employees of his Department. [67364]
Mrs. McGuire:
Staff in the Department for Work and Pensions have access to 32 holiday playschemes, five supported nurseries/crèches and six on site nurseries. The Department also supports some
employees with children through the supply of cash subsidies. Current numbers are as follows:
| Number | |
The Department spends approximately £1,200,000 on child care provision per year.
Existing child care provision available across the Department has been developed according to local business need and is managed and funded from local budgets. As a result the Department has a varying range of subsidies and charges in place. Examples of subsidies and charges include £6 per day per child for nurseries, £4 per day per child for Holiday Playshemes, 35 per cent. of the cost of a holiday play scheme place. Pro rata subsidies are in place in a number of local areas for siblings.
The Department will also shortly be implementing a Childcare Voucher (Salary Sacrifice) Scheme. This will be rolled out with the new payroll system provided by the Resource Management System (RMS) which is scheduled for release in August 2006. This scheme will offer the advantage of supporting parents to make their own choices about where and what type of child care they want for their child.
Compensation Bill
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the potential effect of Clause 1 of the Compensation Bill [Lords] on duties under health and safety at work legislation; and if he will make a statement. [76599]
Mrs. McGuire: Clause 1 of the Compensation Bill, which relates to civil law, will not have an effect on the enforcement in criminal law of the duties set out in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and its relevant statutory provisions.
Compulsory Work-focused Interviews
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of those who fail to attend compulsory work-focused interviews have been subject to sanctions; [76831]
(2) how many incapacity benefit claimants have failed to attend compulsory work-focused interviews; and what proportion this represented of the total number required to attend such interviews. [76833]
Mr. Jim Murphy: Incapacity customers, lone parents, and partners of benefit recipients are the customer groups subject to compulsory work-focused interviews (WFI) at various times and intervals throughout their claim to benefit.
The information requested on incapacity benefit claimants is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
104,545 WFIs have been booked for partners of benefit recipients between April 2004 and February 2006. As at February 2006, 14,621, or 14 per cent. of booked WFIs have been marked as “failed to attend”; of those approximately 4 per cent. have had a sanction applied and 13 per cent. have a sanction outstanding.
For information on lone parents I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer my predecessor gave the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 28 March 2006, Official Report, columns 943W.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |